By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 24, 2014: BY an order dated 31 July 2013, a demand of duty of Rs.4,09,455/- was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner of CE along with imposition of penalty.

The appellant filed a petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging this order.

And the grievance is that the impugned order was passed almost nine months after the conclusion of the hearing. This delay in passing the impugned order, the Petitioner submits, has led to serious prejudice to it. This is so as the impugned order does not discuss and/or consider the various submissions made by the Petitioner during the hearing leading to a demand which itself is not sustainable.

Adverting to the Board Circular dated 05/08/2003 and the decision sin Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - (2008-TIOL-579-HC-MUM-IT) and Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar - (2002-TIOL-659-SC-MISC) it is submitted that the impugned order dated 31 July 2013 be set aside and the Adjudicating Authority be directed to pass a fresh order after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner.

The Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order is well considered order and no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner on account of delay in passing the impugned order; that the Petitioner has a remedy of preferring an appeal under the Act against the impugned order and hence the petition should be dismissed.

The High Court took note of the cited decisions and observed that the since the order is against the parameters laid down by the Court it is not relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under the Act.

It was further observed -

"6. …it is very clear that the authorities under the Act are obliged to dispose of proceedings before them as expeditiously as possible after the conclusion of the hearing. This alone would ensure that all the submissions made by a party are considered in the order passed and ensure that the litigant also has a satisfaction of noting that all his submissions have been considered and an appropriate order has been passed. It is most important that the litigant must have complete confidence in the process of litigation and that this confidence would be shaken if there is excessive delay between the conclusion of the hearing and delivery of judgment."

In fine, the order was set aside and the Additional Commissioner was directed to pass a fresh order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. And the High Court further added - "Needless to add that the resultant adjudication order would be passed within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing granted to the Petitioner."

The petition was allowed in above terms.

(See 2014-TIOL-222-HC-MUM-CX)